NUMBER 13-12-00614-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ MARCO A. RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. AMBROSIO HERNANDEZ, M.D., Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ ORDER OF ABATEMENT Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Benavides Order Per Curiam On November 14, 2013, Eduardo S. Espinosa, court-appointed Receiver for appellant, Marco Ramirez., filed a “Motion to Suspend Appeal.” Previously, Espinosa filed a “Notice of Receivership” stating that, in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Marco Ramirez et al, Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-531, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division (Receivership Court), appointed him Receiver ”to marshal, conserve, hold and, where necessary, operate” all of appellant’s assets. In the “Order Appointing Receiver,” attached to the notice and motion, the Receivership Court names appellant as a receivership defendant and authorizes Espinosa to “defend, compromise or adjust or otherwise dispose of any or all actions or proceedings instituted against the Receivership Estate.” The order also states that “all civil proceedings of any nature . . . involving . . . [the] receivership defendants” are “stayed until further Order of this Court.” Along with the Motion to Suspend Appeal, appellant filed a “Certificate of Conference” stating that the motion is unopposed by appellee. 1 Accordingly, appellant’s motion to suspend appeal is hereby GRANTED and the appeal is ABATED until further order of this Court. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Any documents filed subsequent to this order will remain pending until the appeal is reinstated. The parties are directed to take such action as is appropriate to advise the Court of any change in the status of the proceedings in the Receivership Court that would affect the status of this appeal. It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 9th day of December, 2013. 1 Appellant Marco Ramirez has not filed a pro se response to the Motion to Suspend Appeal. 2